It seems a bit arbitrary. Some kids are the genetic progeny of some rich guy and their child support is really really high. Another kid is born to a poor father and he hardly gets any child support at all, in fact, he’s probably on welfare.
I can understand the argument for child support after a divorce but in cases of child support from reluctant fathers, I’m not sure how we get there without saying “tough, life isn’t fair but we’ve care about the kid more than you, despite the fact that you didn’t even want thee kid, thats a choice we only give to mothers”
Yes, she would be eligible for welfare. But she would have to exercise her choice based on those facts rather than the set of facts that includes child support from an unwilling father.
You can’t make child support contingent on whether the child’s parents were married or not - it’s unconstitutional. It’s an Equal Protection violation to treat so-called legitimate and illegtimate children differently in that manner. There’s nothing requiring that states pass any laws regarding child support, but if they do so they can’t deny it to children on the basis of their parent’s marital status.
Yes we do. If a woman chooses not to have an abortion, and gives birth, there is a child, and both parents are responsible financially for that child. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, there is no child, and neither parent is responsible financially for that non-child. It really isn’t complicated.
It fit the case of the situation I was addressing. Which seemed a sensible case to be fitting in a response. It isn’t relevant to other situations, including the feasibility of manned exploration of Mars.
I think you are simply expressing your opinion. If it was me and i had raised a child that was the result of my wife’s infidelity, I might divorce her but I might also want custody of that child. If you found out your children were not your own, would you really love them less? Sure you might love your wife less but would you love your children any less?
Incidentally, yeah, no kidding. That’s more or less why I was trying to bow out of the thread - once one party to a debate makes clear that they’re down with murdering pregnant women, the possibility of reaching a mutual understanding of each other’s respective positions becomes vanishingly small.
I’d be surprised if anti-abortionists are arguing against child support. The argument against child support is that women can have abortions. If a woman can’t afford to raise the child alone and has a reluctant father then she should get an abortion and if she still wants to keep the child then that’s her choice, isn’t it?
As others have pointed out, genetic parenthood is not a requirement for child support. But you make an interesting point. How can we hold fathers responsible for their children born in wedlock and give them a free pas for children born out of wedlock? I mean if you are married and your wife has a child that you don’t want, you’re still on the hook, aren’t you? Hrmm, I’m gonna have to think ab out that.
Are you just going to entirely ignore the fact that the woman is making her choice at least in some cases, based on the premise that she will be getting child support. What policy rationale is there for giving her this assurance at the expense of the father?